Thursday, November 22, 2007

Lulu thought this was so, so petty.Lulu's not very good at it, but, this is Lulu's attempt in being petty.pettiness aside, the "evidence" given in an international court is such an embarrasement to the nation. Read more about it at JeffOoi

Couldn't agree more with ~wits0~. They seem to think they can pull of the same stupid stunts on the international scene. After all, that's what Nazri tried to do during the Al Jazeera interview/debate.

PS: Sigh... I'm studying in Singapore now. Haven't bumped into any Singaporean friends yet 'cause we're on study leave for exams. Don't know where to hide my face when I do see them. Sigh! I'll not hear the end of this for weeks!

The misleading picture issue does not carry much weight in either countries' cases. Why did it become an issue at all?

One key thrust of the Malaysian legal team's case is aimed to show that the British did receive explicit permission to use PB/PBP from the Johor sultanate thereby proving that the British had recognised Johor's sovereignty over PB/PBP all along.

The Malaysian legal team submitted that there existed an important letter which had requested for explicit permission. This letter was said to have been sent from the British governor of Singapore to the Johor sultanate. However, the legal team said that Malaysia does not have possession of the letter and alleged that it is in the possession of Singapore's National Archives which had not replied to their requests for the letter. As Malaysia could not produce the evidence (the letter), this allegation actually counts for very little weight in the overall consideration of sovereignty over PB/PBP.

However, this insinuated that Singapore's National Archives had been dishonest. This is unfair because if such a letter did exist, it should be in the possession of Johor's archives as the Johor sultanate was the receipient. The Singapore legal team expressed dissappointment with prinicpally this insinuation. See report - http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20071119-37527.html

In retaliation, the Singapore legal team highlighted the inconsequential but juicy misleading picture issue.